A colleague of ours with the Independent Publishers Association of Ontario asked an interesting question: what makes a good response to an ad?
     This got me thinking. I don’t know if there are marketing statistics that answer this, but even if there are, it seems to me that this is such a subjective question, that every advertiser would have a different expectation.
     At Escarpment Views, we have had a wide reaction from our advertisers. We have regular advertisers who seem happy just to be associated with our magazine. They know that their ads with us drive traffic to their stores because they report people calling them asking when the next issue is out.
     We have other advertisers who report that people have come to their pubs, some from far out of town, because they advertised with us. They are willing to advertise again.
     We have had some advertisers who have reported overwhelming response to their ads with us, who can no longer advertise because their small businesses cannot keep up with the new demand. This is good for them, bad for us.
     We have had some businesses get significant sales because they advertised with us — we know this because the consumers have told us — only they don’t advertise with us again because “they advertise in so many places that they can’t keep track of which ads are working.” I feel like putting these advertisers on a leaky raft in the Pacific Ocean, or worse. Grrr.
     A good ad is one that gets the response that an advertiser hopes for — or more. But every advertiser has different dreams.
     It is only logical that all any advertising can do is provide exposure. If your ad is bad, your goods or services are crappy, your prices too high, your manners poor, your location difficult, or any other thing that hinders customers, you may not see results from an ad. All of these things are not the fault of the publication, unless they created the bad ad.
     And I believe that the best way to ensure exposure to your advertisers is to produce a publication that delivers high-quality content that people want to read, actually do read, keep, and talk about to others. My subjective belief is that our magazine, Escarpment Views, does just that. Does anyone disagree?
     Notice how I put this so that no comments are not a bad thing?

Tags: magazine publishing | 1 Comment »

     Our spring issue has been attracting a bit of attention.

     I received this note from Jane Christmas, who is the manager of public and media relations for McMaster University, and also the author of What the Psychic Told the Pilgrim, which I reviewed in Spring 2008: “I just read your Editor’s View, and I loved the way you described a ‘good spring.’ Nicely articulated! And the issue is, as usual, very calming and beautiful.”

     We also received this response to our Eastern Pipistrelle bat photo originally published in our Dec. ’08 issue: “I was happy to see Fiona Reid’s species correction in your latest issue. I work for Conservation Halton on rare species monitoring and inventory. As Fiona indicated, there’s little updated information on this species and it’s very exciting to know there’s still a population at Kelso.” Nigel Finney, Natural Heritage Technician.

     Nigel wants to add “You can help species at risk by reporting your sightings here.”

     Thanks, Jane and Nigel, for your comments. We love hearing from readers. And with the warmer weather, perhaps we can get out more and report any species at risk we discover!

Tags: nature | No Comments »